In re Asbill

Good Law
104 Cal. 205·1894 Cal. LEXIS 879·37 P. 863
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 1894No. 21086California769 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

Petitioners were found guilty by a justice’s court, in the county of Humboldt, of a misdemeanor, and were sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars each, or be imprisoned, etc.

The offense charged was for the violation of an ordinance passed by the board of supervisors of that county for the protection of game.

The charging part of the complaint upon which they were tried is as follows: “That said [naming the defendants] on the twentieth day of December, 1893, at Cooper’s ranch in the said county of Humboldt, state of California, did willfully and unlawfully have in their possession deerskins.”

The judgment followed the language above quoted. The defendants refused to pay the fine imposed, and were committed to jail, and now petition this court to be discharged on habeas corpus.

*206 Petitioners contend that no offense is charged under the ordinance, and that the ordinance is unconstitutional.

The complaint was made under section 10 of the ordinance, but a proper construction of that section requires the light of other sections. Sections 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are as follows:

The construction given to section 10 by the justice before whom the petitioners were tried and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.